Airbus A380 Spins Commuter Jet at JFK

[Guest fountainhall]

Amazing footage this morning on most news channels of an Air France Airbus A380 clipping the tail of a Commair Delta connection commuter aircraft last night at JFK. The commuter jet violently spins round some 40-degrees. The A380 with 520 on board was taxiing prior to take-off when it clipped the Comair jet which had just landed from Boston with 64 passengers and crew. No-one was injured but both jets suffered damage. One of CNN

[Guest Jovianmoon]

That's the sort of cock up you might expect from a runway incursion, not while both aircraft are using taxiways. Position and hold, anyone?

 

Amazing how the A380 dwarfs the CRJ. I know CRJs are small commuters, but I guess I had no idea just how big A380s are. Neither did the JFK ground controllers, it seems. Perhaps some widening of the taxiways might be in order...

 

Anyway, thanks for posting that - I like a news story with a bit of spin!

[Guest fountainhall]

I like a news story with a bit of spin!

Nice one!

 

I am staggered that the Commair jet just flips around so easily. It's like a toy! I realise the A380 lost a bit of its wing, but I'd have thought part of the tail of the small jet would have been sheered off.

 

I have taken the A380 a few times now between BKK and Hong Kong. Inside, it really does not 'feel' any larger than the 747s - perhaps because the 2 levels board from different airbridges and so it does not feel like a double-decker.

[Guest Jovianmoon]

I've never flown on an A380, but what impresses me most is not just that it's a double-decker, but unlike the 747, it's a double-decker all the way from fore to aft. That's one hell of a big plane (but like I said, bigger than I realised).

 

Cheers.

[Guest fountainhall]

There seems to have been a spate of US air traffic controllers falling asleep on duty. I had wondered if this might have been one of the reasons for the Air France A380 incident at JFK. But that

[Bob]

When the 380 visited Thailand a couple of years ago on its promotional tour, it clipped one of the hangars there and slightly damaged the wings. The excuse printed in the paper was that the pilot was following markings on the ground for smaller (less wide) aircraft. I suspect that might have been the problem here and/or simply poor pilot knowledge of the width of his airplane (the pilot should have easily seen the parked, non-moving, smaller plane as the camera had no problem in seeing it clearly).

[Guest fountainhall]

. . . and/or simply poor pilot knowledge of the width of his airplane (the pilot should have easily seen the parked, non-moving, smaller plane as the camera had no problem in seeing it clearly.

Sorry Bob. I just don't buy that one. Aircraft movements on taxiways are 100% the responsibility of the ground controllers. In addition to keeping the aircraft on the taxiway, the pilots have a great deal to get through on their check list before take-off and are guided by the controllers. Clearly, if there is an obvious obstruction, they'd stop their plane. I assume they must have seen the Comair jet turn off the taxi-way, but the footage does not make it clear for how long the smaller jet had not been moving.

 

But if you look at the vdo, you will see that the A380's cockpit is set back from the front of the aircraft - as on a 747. It's also bang in the centre of a very wide fuselage making it impossible for the pilots to see almost anything behind them – also as on a 747. Ground controllers have visual contact with the aircraft under their command and ground radar to help them ensure separation of aircraft, Add to that, by the time the incident occurred, at least 80% of the A380 had passed the smaller plane. Unless the pilots for some reason deliberately disobeyed instructions, this was a ground control fault.

[Bob]

Sorry Bob. I just don't buy that one. Aircraft movements on taxiways are 100% the responsibility of the ground controllers.

 

And I don't buy that one at all. In my view, the pilot is responsible for knowing the width of his airplane and not taxiing into any situation where there isn't adequate clearance.

 

By the way, I think the 380 was coming in versus going out but that shouldn't make any difference.

 

While there may be various circumstances that contributed to this accident, bet you 5 baht that the AF pilot is mainly cited for this collision. But, we'll all know what the conclusion might be a long time from now (6 months+?) when they finish the investigation.

[Guest fountainhall]

Deal! 5 baht plus interest

 

Actually the A380 was taxiing to take-off. CNN's Jim Bitterman was on the flight and his report makes that clear. As you say, it makes no difference other than the pilots have more work on their hands prior to take-off.

[Bob]

Deal! 5 baht plus interest

 

Deal made. Now I'll do without a few necessities (a little food and water) in the meantime so I can come up with the interest....

[Guest fountainhall]

I think my odds just improved a little B) . The Head of the the US Air Traffic Control Agency just resigned! I realise there is nothing in the articles or quotes I have seen which mention the A380 JFK incident and all specifically refer to other issues of controllers being sleep whilst aircraft were trying to land. But it's interesting this resignation happens now!

 

Randy Babbitt, chief of the Federal Aviation Administration, said he had accepted Hank Krakowski's resignation.

 

On Thursday, Mr Babbitt pledged a "top to bottom review" of the air traffic control system.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13085245

[Bob]

I think my odds just improved a little B) . The Head of the the US Air Traffic Control Agency just resigned!

 

Yea, sure, the guy in Washington should have been watching the runway at JFK through his binoculars.

[Guest fountainhall]

Of course. Just as the Head of the FDA is there at every drug bust to make sure no laws are infringed by his staff.

[Guest fountainhall]

Here is another You Tube vdo which gives the audio communication between the pilots of the two jets and the ground controller. Thanks to a civilian aviation website, I know why they say “Super” when mentioning the A380 -

 

"Super" is correct suffix for an A380. It's added to the end of a callsign in the same way "Heavy" is added to the end of callsigns when a flight is operated by a B747/A340 (ie. "Speedbird065heavy", "Connie792heavy" etc). This practice is frequently used in the US but less so in Europe.

 

Due to the large vortex an A380 creates, it was decided rather than place it the same "heavy" category as the B747/A340 etc, a new category was created and this was called "Super" with the A380 currently being the (only) aircraft within the category.

http://www.civilianaviation.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=113&p=20952

 

Alpha, Bravo, Echo and Mike are the names given to taxiways.

 

None of this is sufficient to allocate blame. But the ground controller clearly tells the A380 pilots where to go -

 

“Air France 7 Super, runway 22 right, turn left on Alpha, hold short Echo . . . ”

 

So, unless the pilot had veered off the centre line, I fail to see how he can be to blame. I then find it strange that the controller is not aware of the collision until the Comair pilot asks for help. And a little later, I'm also surprised - given the fact he knows an accident has taken place and must surely be focussing hard on that incident - that he seems confused when he gets a message from the Comair pilot and has to ask: “Who’s that?”

 

Equally surprising to my ears is the calm in the voice of the Comair pilot. His plane has just been walloped like a baseball and spun through 40 or so degrees. Yet, he makes it sound like an everyday occurrence. A pro!

 

Hopefully we’ll get more detailed information quite soon.

 

[Guest fountainhall]

Yet more trouble in the US Air Traffic Control system. A controller on duty at a regional radar center in Oberlin, Ohio that handles high-altitude air traffic, was suspended after he was discovered watching a movie instead of directing air traffic. This comes hot on the heels of at least 5 other recent incidents involving air traffic controllers falling asleep on the job.

 

This from the LA Times -

 

The controller's microphone was inadvertently activated, transmitting the audio of the movie - the 2007 crime thriller "Cleaner," starring Samuel L. Jackson - for more than three minutes to all the planes in the airspace that the controller was supposed to be monitoring, the agency said.

 

The controller's microphone became stuck in the transmit position, preventing him from hearing incoming radio calls or issuing instructions to planes during the incident, the agency said.

 

The controller was alerted to the mishap when he was contacted by a military pilot. Besides the controller, the FAA also has suspended a manager at the Oberlin center.

 

In all, the FAA has suspended nine controllers and supervisors since late March . . .

 

The incidents have shaken FAA officials, made air traffic controllers the butt of late-night comedians and raised public jitters about the safety of air travel.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-air-traffic-controller-20110419,0,3895387.story

[Guest fountainhall]

Whilst we are still awaiting the report on the A380 incident at JFK, I took some photos of an A380 at Hong Kong a week-ago. When you look front on at the cockpit, you can clearly see that the pilots sit right bang in the middle of a very wide airplane. When you then take in the wing, it looks like the side windows probably do enable the pilots to see the wing tips. But this photo does a lousy job of showing the very swept-back angle of the wing. The 3rd photo tries to do that. If I could have taken the photo from a full side-on view, the wing tips would clearly be shown as being about 80% back from the front of the aircraft. It would require a pilot to twist a helluva long way around in order to see one of them - at a time when he has to be concentrating on instruments and take-off check-lists.

 

I remain of the opinion that it is not the pilots job to know that other aircraft are so close they might be in a collision situation. On the taxiways, it is the ground controllers who call the shots. With their ground radar and vantage point above the airport, they are the only ones in a position to judge distances between aircraft.

 

But we'll see what the Report says before I claim my winnings from Bob

[Bob]

But we'll see what the Report says before I claim my winnings from Bob

 

I've repeatedly read that the A-380 pilots cannot see their wingtips but your photo almost makes it look possible if they strained themselves a bit.

 

As to who wins the bet, heck if I know....and we'll probably be waiting a long time for any definitive conclusion (presuming we get one). But (and I admit I don't know) your notion that ground controllers are responsible for distance between all aircraft taxiing on the ground seems a bit strange to me. There's enough controllers to take care of all air traffic (which I presume means looking at radar screens, etc.) and to keep a watch on every airplane moving in the airport? And, of course, it's reallly tough to do that if one's asleep.

 

P.S. With all the money involved in these aircraft, I wonder why they didn't incorporate some type of cameras in strategic locations so the pilots or engineers could easilly keep an eye on what's going on around the aircraft. A couple of cameras at the wingtips might have helped, huh?

[Guest fountainhall]

With all the money involved in these aircraft, I wonder why they didn't incorporate some type of cameras in strategic locations so the pilots or engineers could easilly keep an eye on what's going on around the aircraft. A couple of cameras at the wingtips might have helped, huh?

That's such a simple solution I'm surprised it's not already been incorporated. There have been several accidents involving engines when most pilots have had to rely totally on their instruments because they just can not see the inner part of the wings. And in at least one case (a British Midland Boeing 737), because the pilots misread the instruments and shut down the wrong engine, the plane crashed due to lack of power. If they had been able to see the engine in flames, that would not have happened.

 

Perhaps it's also now time to go back to the idea of having a flight engineer in the cockpit in addition to the 2 pilots.

[Guest fountainhall]

Whilst we are awaiting the report on the A380 incident, yet another potentially catastrophic incident on the ground at JFK last Monday. A Lufthansa A340 with 286 on board had been cleared for take-off and was rolling down the runway. A ground controller noticed that an Egyptair 777, taxiing prior to take-off, seemed to make a wrong turn and was about to enter the runway a mile ahead of the Lufthansa jet. At a speed of around 140mph, the Lufthansa captain was ordered to abort take-off. It literally screeched to a halt and had to hold on the runway whilst its brakes cooled down.

 

An unidentified pilot who witnessed the near-miss radioed, "Those two were coming together."

 

A pilot aboard a Virgin American flight arriving from Los Angeles said, "That was quite a show."

http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/06/22/lufthansa-egyptair-in-near-miss-at-jfk-airport/

[Guest]

That's not good. If he was at fault, I hope the Egypt Air pilot gets his pilots license revoked & they have a major investigation.

The worlds largest air accident actually happened on the ground when 2 747s collided at Tenerife, killing 583 people.

[Guest fountainhall]

The worlds largest air accident actually happened on the ground when 2 747s collided at Tenerife, killing 583 people.

That was at a small airport hardly equipped to handle 747s but where planes had been forced to land due to a bomb scare at their destination, Gran Canaria. As Gran Canaria was reopening, thick fog had descended on Tenerife.

 

One of the jumbos was a KLM 747 with the airline's senior pilot and instructor at the controls. The other was a Pan Am 747 which had been ordered to taxi up the runway and then turn on to a taxiway to allow the KLM jet to take off. Due to the fog, faulty communication systems and ambiguous instructions form the controllers, the lack of ground radar, lack of knowledge of the airport on the part or the pilots, and the impetuousness of the KLM captain, that KLM jet started to take-off before the Pan Am jet had turned off the runway. The KLM jet saw the Pan Am jet too late and tried to take off early. It clipped the tail of the Pan Am jet whose captain, seeing the approaching plane emerging from the mist. had pushed the throttles to full power as it turned off. Unfortunately, it takes a few seconds to develop maximum thrust. By that time, both aircraft were in a ghastly fireball.

 

After a lengthy investigation, KLM finally accepted blame. Basically pilot error!

[Guest fountainhall]

It happens more often than we think - and it's happened again! This time an SAS aircraft and a United Express Jet clipped wings as they were taxiing for take-off at Newark airport. The vdo here only shows the aircraft after they had returned to the gate. Whether this was the fault of air traffic control (my guess - as usual) or one or both pilots, only time and a long enquiry will reveal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhDAAer5EX4